• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Moderated What's wrong with porn?

Incidentally, do you consider that it seems prudent that you form and hold views on other matters based on intuition, bias and fear, such as the application of the First Amendment, for example?
JFrankA said:
There's a difference. A person has a right to their own intution, bias and fear. No government should have the right to dictate what intutions, biases and fears should be quieted or dictated.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Thank you.
 
RandFan said:
Fear for my child. I would go to great lengths to protect my child. Bias toward those who would read VCP. I find the material disgusting and I've an innate bias against it and those who would consume it.
Click to expand...
Fear of what, that's absent from the other boyfriend? On what basis do you hold a bias towards those who would read VCP? Such behaviour only amounts to the exercising of a right that you're vociferously fighting for!
 
Southwind17 said:
Neither a criticism nor a dig, RandFan, but I get the distinct impression that you're no longer interested in a meaningful debate here, at least with me.

RandFan said:
I'm happy to have a debate. You didn't say anything in the post worthy of response. It's a bit troubling but it's just an opinion. I think you are entitled to an opinion.

I can only be honest with you. If my honesty bothers you and you find that a waste of time then by all means don't respond to me. It's your choice.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
If this is the question you mean then you have your answer. I've answered you honestly. I've engaged you fairly and responsively.
 
Southwind17 said:
Fear of what, that's absent from the other boyfriend?
Click to expand...
Asked and answered. One reads VCP and the other doesn't. The answer isn't going to change. Besides, it is a given.

On what basis do you hold a bias towards those who would read VCP?
Click to expand...
Visceral disgust of VCP.

Such behaviour only amounts to the exercising of a right that you're vociferously fighting for!
Click to expand...
Yes. Of course. *I have the right to act on bias, intuition and fear.

Salient point: The government doesn't.

*Not as an employer, landlord or proprietor where the right is curtailed when it comes to race, religion, gender and sexual orientation.
 
Last edited:
RandFan said:
No. On the contrary. The application of any codified law or right of free speech is often contrary to my biases, intuition and fears.
Click to expand...
So what, exactly, is it about whatever category it is that the VCP-reading boyfriend fits into, then? What's the differentiator?

RandFan said:
It's tempting sometimes to want to give up esential liberty for percieved security. The American consitution was formulated on the belief that it is wrong to do so. I would not want to live in a place like Iran or Saudia Arabia even though I might percieve added security as Bill Thompson suggests. [emphasis added]
Click to expand...
"Percieved [sic] security". Is that analogous to "perceived risk", by any chance?! Regardless, the American constitution is clearly incompatible with modern, continuously evolving society. If you believe the Constitution mustn't change even though "times" do you hold a grossly misguided view.
 
RandFan said:
If this is the question you mean then you have your answer. I've answered you honestly. I've engaged you fairly and responsively.
Click to expand...
I don't believe you have. I honestly don't believe you are "happy to have a debate", as you state.
 
Southwind17 said:
"Percieved [sic] security". Is that analogous to "perceived risk", by any chance?! Regardless, the American constitution is clearly incompatible with modern, continuously evolving society. If you believe the Constitution mustn't change even though "times" do you hold a grossly misguided view.
Click to expand...

Woah woah woah. The right to speak freely your opinions and views is "incompatible with modern, continuously evolving society"?

I'm sorry, SW, isn't that what you are doing now? Isn't that what we are all doing now?

Quieting people down doesn't evolve or improve anything. It stops it dead. And who gets to decide what should be stopped?

Edited to change the last question: What if there is something YOU like that has been stopped because of the "potential harm" it could cause? What if the government decided that movies about bank robbery and murder should be restricted? Would you agree with it? (Notice I said agree, not follow the law - two separate things).
 
Last edited:
RandFan said:
One reads VCP and the other doesn't.
Click to expand...
Why does that instill fear in you?

RandFan said:
Visceral disgust of VCP.
Click to expand...
Why do you allow your own tastes to form the basis on which you judge others who are simply exercising their rights - rights that you vociferously fight for?

RandFan said:
I have the right to act on bias, intuition and fear.
Click to expand...
No doubt. But if there's no rational basis for such bias, intuition and fear is such behaviour rational or irrational?
 
Southwind17 said:
So what, exactly, is it about whatever category it is that the VCP-reading boyfriend fits into, then? What's the differentiator?
Click to expand...
He reads VCP.

"Percieved [sic] security".
Click to expand...
Are you certain you don't live in a glass house?

Is that analogous to "perceived risk", by any chance?
Click to expand...
Sure.

Regardless, the American constitution is clearly incompatible with modern, continuously evolving society.
Click to expand...
"Clearly incompatible"? That's your opinion. It's simply an assertion.

If you believe the Constitution mustn't change even though "times" do you hold a grossly misguided view.
Click to expand...
My opinion isn't based solely on the consitiution. It's based on basic fundamental human rights. Few are more important than freedom of speech.
 
Southwind17 said:
I don't believe you have. I honestly don't believe you are "happy to have a debate", as you state.
Click to expand...
Yet here we are. I'm answering your questions about Igor's question and you are ignoring many of my questions. I think if there is one of us who honestly wants to have a debate it's me as I've demonstrated so. I've not engaged in silly rhetorical device.
 
Last edited:
JFrankA said:
Woah woah woah. The right to speak freely your opinions and views is "incompatible with modern, continuously evolving society"? I'm sorry, SW, isn't that what you are doing now? Isn't that what we are all doing now?

Quieting people down doesn't evolve or improve anything. It stops it dead. And who gets to decide what should be stopped?

Edited to change the last question: What if there is something YOU like that has been stopped because of the "potential harm" it could cause? What if the government decided that movies about bank robbery and murder should be restricted? Would you agree with it? (Notice I said agree, not follow the law - two separate things).
Click to expand...

Scratch a deterministic moralist and you find find a tyrant sympathizer.
 
Southwind17 said:
Why does that instill fear in you?
Click to expand...
It doesn't cause me to curl up in a fetal position. I fear for my child's safety. I wouldn't break down in a panic if my child didn't put on his seat belt but I would prefer it.

Why do you allow your own tastes to form the basis on which you judge others who are simply exercising their rights - rights that you vociferously fight for?
Click to expand...
Because that is my right. He can have his rights and I can have mine. When those come into conflict it is up to us to work it out. So long as I don't try to use the government to circumvent his rights then there's no problem.

No doubt. But if there's no rational basis for such bias, intuition and fear is such behaviour rational or irrational?
Click to expand...
It may very well be irrational. I don't know. JFrankA makes a very compelling argument. I might yet be persuaded to think otherwise.

I don't pretend that I never act irrationaly. Given what we know I would have to say there is a very good likelyhood that my response is irrational.
 
Southwind17 said:
"Basic fundamental human rights". Like the right to kill somebody, for example? Or are you drawing your own imaginary line somewhere?!
Click to expand...


SW, let me explain the concept of "Basic fundamental human rights" to you, because, frankly, you are perversing it.

What this means is that a person has a right to do what they choose provided that it does not interfere with the rights another person has. The rights are equal between all people. It's reciporcal.

Therefore, I have the right to live. Also, it's my right to dislike Person X, and tell him so. It's also my right to say publicly that I dislike Person X. However, if I kill Person X, then I'm taking away that Person X right to live, as well as any other rights he had.

There IS a clear, definite line.
 
Southwind17 said:
So what?
Click to expand...
So I perceive that it is problematic.

"Basic fundamental human rights". Like the right to kill somebody, for example? Or are you drawing your own imaginary line somewhere?!
Click to expand...
I think most modern liberal democracies and the UN have previsions for free speech. I'm quite certain all of the top 20 HDI nations have free speech rights. Natan Shcharansky makes a powerful argument in his book (The Case For Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror) in favor for free speech in his book. I think that there is ample evidence that freedom of speech is one of the most important tools to secure freedom.

So no, no imaginary line.
 
Last edited:
JFrankA said:
SW, let me explain the concept of "Basic fundamental human rights" to you, because, frankly, you are perversing it.

What this means is that a person has a right to do what they choose provided that it does not interfere with the rights another person has. The rights are equal between all people. It's reciporcal.

Therefore, I have the right to live. Also, it's my right to dislike Person X, and tell him so. It's also my right to say publicly that I dislike Person X. However, if I kill Person X, then I'm taking away that Person X right to live, as well as any other rights he had.

There IS a clear, definite line.
Click to expand...
I agree.
 
RandFan said:
It doesn't cause me to curl up in a fetal position. I fear for my child's safety. I wouldn't break down in a panic if my child didn't put on his seat belt but I would prefer it.

Because that is my right. He can have his rights and I can have mine. When those come into conflict it is up to us to work it out. So long as I don't try to use the government to circumvent his rights then there's no problem.

It may very well be irrational. I don't know. JFrankA makes a very compelling argument. I might yet be persuaded to think otherwise.

I don't pretend that I never act irrationaly. Given what we know I would have to say there is a very good likelyhood that my response is irrational.
Click to expand...

Several posters on this forum find VCP repugnant. I think I would, although based on my imagination, I haven't actually seen any.

The stomach shouldn't be used as an organ of cognition.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom